"Microorganisms
As of yet it has not been possible to investigate the impact of genetically modified microorganisms
(GMMOs) on the ecosystem as a whole. However, the specific characteristics of microorganisms,
such as short generation times, the possibility to adapt to unfavourable environmental
conditions, and the capacity to exchange genetic material, have led to the development
of several indicators of potential damage resulting from the release of genetically modified
microorganisms. These indicators include
• persistence or capacity for survival,
• dispersal,
• population dynamics,
• competition between different microorganisms,
• impacts on biotic communities in the surrounding environment.
Today safety assessments during the release of GMMOs focus on the persistence and dispersal
of released microorganisms and of recombinant gene products.
The capacity of GMMOs to establish themselves is influenced by biotic factors such as food
supply, predators, density of bacteriophages, competing microorganisms or population density
or by abiotic factors such as temperature, pH-value, oxygen demand, water and salt content
and soil conditions. Some microorganisms are able to survive over long periods of time under
bad environmental conditions by forming spores or cysts. Other microorganisms do not form
such permanent states, but change into a state in which they are viable but not culturable
(VNC). Many scientific papers have disproved the widely expressed view that GMMOs are at
a disadvantage due to additional genes, referred to as extra burden. In actual fact, GMMOs
have at least a transient capacity to survive. In many cases, however, the capacity for survival
is likely to be more durable.
Another important aspect in the risk assessment of GMMOs is their introduction into other
habitats, once they are released into the environment. Thus microorganisms from unfavourable
environmental compartments can be transported into an environment offering better conditions
for survival. This transport can take place via wind, running waters, rain water as well
as when GMMOs become attached to tools or harvested goods. In addition, organisms such
as protozoa, insects (e.g. spring-tails) and other soil animals, such as earthworms, may serve
as vectors, too. Field experiments revealed evidence of both vertical transport into deeper
soil layers as well as lateral transport.
Another risk associated with the release of GMMOs is the elimination of species from the
autochthonous microflora. An indicator of the fitness of GMMOs is their capacity to eliminate
their wild relatives. Small-scale and farm-scale experiments have shown that depending on
the case GMMOs may have a lower, equivalent, or higher competitiveness."

I think he should be brought into this. In fact, I think it is right up his alley. He and his group would probably do some research for us. He has many papers published with Citovsky as well. What do you think????

I do not know what this is , no one does. It could be viral, parasitic, newly created combo..no one knows, not yet.

Citovsky is doing the agro thing..Wymore is seeing people and gathering facts and investigating the fibers which seem to be the holy grail...another person is checking into Protease Inhibitors...the only thing I am doing is setting up the state labs with the national database so that we can duplicate the Georgia model and improve it, have state labs set up that are not connected to report to the CDC and so we can monitor the CDC findings and compare them to ours.

We need to find out what it is. That is step one. Not search the world for everything that is out there cuz there are millions of things out there that you could guess is this. millions of words you can put together into a video that makes no sense..sorry but true....What we need are state labs to test all of us, and compare notes and feed that info into a national database , not using our names but assigning each of us a number for the sake of research.

Then when we figure out and compare what we have, our symptoms, to what is known and then and only then can we find out that what we have is unknown.

You have to rule out all the knowns first that are already listed in a databank.

That is how it is done. But that is done in a lab not on a computer without any way to back it up.

So sorry to hear of your painful infection, but glad the dermatologist finally treated you with REAL medicine. Hopefully she is learning more about this disease and is no longer prescribing antipsychotics! Nothing like adding insult to injury...infuriating isn't it? I just got a look at my so- called medical records from my allergist/immunologist, and shall not be returning. Just got turned down at an infectious disease group because they "don't know how to treat it." (?Like Randy said, no ICD-9 code to max payment.) My symptoms are systemic, so I'd rather see an ID doc, though my skin has changed so much over last 6 months.
I am MUCH better after my "trifecta" of doxy, itraconazole, and ivermectin from a doc at work (who is not comfortable prescribing this). Now I just have to worry about a major return of the creeps--It is never all gone----By the way, my pharmacist told me that the pharmaceutical co. which makes ivermectin is DISCONTINUING it, so we better get all the supply out there asap.
I wonder if your derm is the one I saw on the news from Penn, and if so what her name is. My derm (who ruled out DOP) is trying to refer me there but there are 35 derms on staff. Thanks, and good luck.
nettimo